Students Get Lobby Group Material From Chris de Freitas in Climate 101 Lectures

New Zealand-based academic and climate sceptic Dr Chris de Freitas has been caught using material from US lobby groups in lectures to first year university Geography students.

Students who listened to the “Geography 101” lectures on climate from Dr de Freitas, an associate professor at The University of Auckland’s School of Environment, admitted to being “quite convinced” that a scientific debate was still raging over the causes of global warming.

A report in the New Zealand Herald highlighted how Dr de Freitas had ignored key texts, ignored recent extreme weather events and argued that climate change was almost entirely down to natural variations.

In the lecture notes, published by author Gareth Renowden on his Hot Topic blog, one student wrote in the margins that “CO2 has a lot of beneficial effects… don’t believe the propaganda”.

Renowden pointed out:

De Freitas is presenting material prepared by US lobby groups and bloggers — stuff that’s been deliberately designed to confuse the issue, not provide educational material for use in university foundation courses.

Renowden discovered that Dr de Freitas was using material from retired meteorologist Joe D’Aleo and Christopher Monckton - both advisors to a number of climate denier think-tanks with links to fossil fuel funding.

Both are advisers to the Science and Public Policy Institute. Also an advisor to the SPPI is Dr David Legates, who was recently asked to step down as Delaware’s state climatologist.

Dr de Freitas came to prominence when the journal Climate Research, for which he was an editor, published a controversial paper in 2003 by Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas which argued contemporary climate change was not happening.

Some 13 of the editors cited in the paper complained they had been misrepresented. The paper prompted the resignation of three members of the editorial board, including editor-in-chief Hans von Storch, who said the research was flawed.

PhilM asks: “What is it with geologists & engineers?” Geologists study longer time frames than a blink of mankind’s history. Engineers have to look at real things from all sides to improve or assure they actually work, consistent and are safe. They seldom base decisions on models. Real world versus best guess.

“Geologists study longer time frames than a blink of mankind’s history. ”

That’s right. So they know a lot about our past in terms of millions of years ago & can point to fluctuations over thousands of years past, but what is happening now is not over the space of thousands or millions of years. It’s happening in decades.

What took thousands of years to occur in the past is occurring in decades now.

“Engineers have to look at real things”

They also have absolutely nothing to do with expertise on climate change.

PhilM, the key word left from your comment is “unprecedented.” Geologists know that “but what is happening now is not over the space of thousands or millions of years. It’s happening in decades.” is not “unprecedented.”

Knowing that makes quite a difference in beliefs. The funny part, that is probably the major difference between skeptics and believers. Without the belief in “unprecedented” climate events (contradiction in its self) then it is even harder to believe the catastrophic, model-based predictions/projections/claims.

‘Engineers have to look at real things from all sides to improve or assure they actually work, consistent and are safe. They seldom base decisions on models. Real world versus best guess.’

Oh! Dear! You just cannot help yourself in making statements bereft of fact.

As a one time aeronautical engineer I van assure you that models have played an important role in the developments of flight from mathematical models of aeronautical engineering science to the more tactile models used to explore aspects of the reality in wind tunnels.

Then there is the structural modelling that takes place, once again both theoretical and in substance.

And you do realise that climate models are based upon empirical data and are checked against more empirical data as they are run. There is much ignorant nonsense spoken against climate models from certain quarters.

Some clues about climate models (and much more) can be found easily in ‘The Warming Papers’:

http://www.amazon.com/Warming-Papers-David-Archer/dp/1405196165

I suggest that when you have finished Jeff Goodell’s ‘Big Coal’ that you find a copy of The Warming Papers and educate yourself on this too.

LionelA, I’ve overstated my case for engineers, and admit it. Will you admit that comparing the climate models to empirical data is problematic? The most obvious example is Hansen’s 1988 testimony to Congress. The time since is now long enough to compare the model predictions/projections/claims against an ever improving empirical data sets, and that climate super star’s 1988 predictions/projections/claims are proving to be diverging significantly.

I won’t even compare the pass/fail and efficiency results of model outputs compared to empirical environment of the aeronautics. Actually when comparing the two sciences and their models is more like comparing apples to oranges.

‘Will you admit that comparing the climate models to empirical data is problematic? The most obvious example is Hansen’s 1988 testimony to Congress.’

Short answer, No. Because nothing that Hansen has said or written, when taken in context, shows that he was raising unnecessary alarm.

Which specific claim or claims of Hansen are you referring to?

Now please supply exact quotes and the sources of those quotes in order to provide context.

Very often you people pick up your memes second hand through the distortion filters of the likes of Michaels and that work of fiction ‘State of Fear’ which on the science was more fiction than fact and hence have a distorted view of what Hansen actually said or wrote.

LionelA, do you ever go to Lucia, or McIntyre’s blogs? Or does reading alternative views leave you feeling dirty? The fact you don’t seem aware of the comparative reports showing past temperature predictions/projections/claims from models tells much.

No, I’m not going to do your research. Claiming some high ground of knowledge if you are unaware of comparisons means you haven’t reached that ole peak, yet. And, you call everyone else with alternative opinions or sources of data deniers?????

‘LionelA, do you ever go to Lucia, or McIntyre’s blogs? Or does reading alternative views leave you feeling dirty? The fact you don’t seem aware of the comparative reports showing past temperature predictions/projections/claims from models tells much.’

I have probably seen more graphs and reports of past temperature reconstructions than you. Have you read much of the scientifically peer reviewed literature or even the books published on the topic by experts in the field: Archer, Alley, Broecker etc. etc?

Here is a little list for you:

http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/books/

Whatever, that statement of yours answered my question, how?

I’ll repeat:

‘Which specific claim or claims of Hansen are you referring to?

Now please supply exact quotes and the sources of those quotes in order to provide context.’

What’s up doc, caught you out by your relyiance on a thriller writer for scientific inspiration:

http://www.earth.columbia.edu/news/2004/story12-13-04b.html

As it happens I am familiar with McIntyre’s and Lucia’s blogs and find them devious wrt the first and confused wrt the latter.

McIntyre, he who complained loudly about not getting the data. McIntyre used non scientific methodology in a campaign of disruption masquerading as FOI requests (multiple and of spam like quantities - hence the disrupting influence on a small scientific establishment not equipped for dealing with such). Scientists go through scientific channels to obtain data, and the data he wanted was in the public domain and indeed McIntyre even had it and sat on it doing SFA with it. Why I wonder? Incompetant, lazy or just plain devious.

and Lucia here: http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/longish-trends-much-lower-than-models/
and this more recent article from Lucia which has three graphs two from 1980 and one from 1950. Since the issue raised was Hansen’s 1988 US Congressional testimony and divergence since, this one is interesting.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/which-observation-is-the-outlier/

Beware, the anomaly baselines may not be identical, but that kind of analysis is important to tell when we have reached a turning point.

You can huff and puff all you like about Hansen’s rather prescient scenario B projections but the bottom line is that that is the way, give or take the odd volcano or increase in particulates putting, thankfully, a lid on scenario A coming about RSN (as Jerry Pournelle once remarked), that warming has gone. And remember before equilibrium is reached there is more warming in the pipeline even if Harry Potter manages to stop CO2 emissions completely from this point hence.

McIntyre’s special brand of non-science has been lanced time and time again, Bram Stoker must have had forward vision too, and the piece of misdirection you cite is included here:

“Or does reading alternative views leave you feeling dirty?” - Well, a lot of denialist´s views are presented with absurd remarks like this, and they leave me in need of a bath, yes, after the routine barf - if I at all consider them.

Do habitually consider the alternative to the theorem that Pi (ratio of circumference and diameter of a/any circle) is an irrational number? Do you then huff and puff when the mathematics faculty or the physics faculty just laugh and tell you to visit high school again?

Actually, a plot of the ´top ten most advanced models´ first half of the 1980´s make an ensemble of which reality since is quite a middle fit, and whose spread falls within no more than twice average year-to-year variability.
Reality also is a bit above Arrhenius´ 1905 calculations (something like +2.1° C including H2O-feedback for doubling of [CO2] ), but close enough.
By the way, the old models also gave news about droughts getting longer and more intense, but _when_ it rains or snows it would do so harder. Many countries find both their record dry and their record wet months/seasons/years since 1988, not before.

But why look at ancient models. Time since has proved long enough to find out that the devastation of Arctic sea ice and many glaciers have actually been underestimated. In the case of the Arctic, vastly so. The models also missed the fact that even the world´s two largest ice sheets register net loss to melting.

cRRK, said: “Actually, a plot of the ´top ten most advanced models´ first half of the 1980´s make an ensemble of which reality since is quite a middle fit, and whose spread falls within no more than twice average year-to-year variability.”

Top ten in models? How is/was that measured?

BTW, how complete/valuable are models that need to be used as an ensemble to get reasonable results? The only way to pick 10 of 23 or more models’ data results is to compare them against reality. What happened tot he other 13+ model outputs? What are the ten best models determined after 1, 2, 5, 10, etc. years?

RR that was Cherry picking to the extreme! It was nearly the craziest comment I have heard over my many years of watching and studying this issue.

cRR says: “Denialists do cherry picking. I don’t and don’t have to :)” and then provides several references that have NORELATIONSHIP to his claim. What was it? Picking the ten best models…. And I asked him how that’s done?

But the real issues with his references is that they don’t say much. The first is for a slice of the earth and not global. The second is just a graph of several model outputs with no comparison to reality.

At least the final two have model results compared to temperature measurements, but too little reference material to validate results. The funniest example, #4, appears to be from his own now closed blog. Just looking at one of the comments to the graph I found this:
”
The head of the
Space Research Laboratory of the Observatory, Prof.
Habibullo I. Abdussamatov, stated that instead of professed
global warming, the Earth will be facing a slow decrease in
temperatures in 2012-2015. The gradual cooling will reach its
maximum by 2040, and lead to a deep freeze around 2050 to
2060. This period of global freeze will last some 50 years, and
will be comparable to the cooling that took place during the
Little Ice Age in 1645-1715, when the temperature decreased
by 1 to 2°C (Abdussamatov 2004, Abdussamatov 2005, and
Abdussamatov 2006).

Because, in fact, the weight of presenting evidence is with the denialist’s camp.
(hey, ‘camp’, plural: ‘camps’ - the latter would translate to ‘kampen’ in Dutch! But Kampen is actually my real name, and the blog you were looking at is not mine but that of a Dutch senior meteorologist).

“The first is for a slice of the earth and not global.” - correct: the DCP-experiment was to model future climate for a region, not global. It is the harder experiment to do by far. The results are impressive.

“The second is just a graph of several model outputs with no comparison to reality.” - Do the comparison, then.

“Because, in fact, the weight of presenting evidence is with the denialist’s camp.
(hey, ‘camp’, plural: ‘camps’ - the latter would translate to ‘kampen’ in Dutch! But Kampen is actually my real name, and the blog you were looking at is not mine but that of a Dutch senior meteorologist). ”

This is how the deniers roll cRR. Their first course of action is to look for ways of smearing you, so they trawl the net for whatever dirt they can get to shut you down.

This guy anonymous2 & his mate attempted to impersonate me several times & posted anti semitic smear to try & shut me down. Thats how they operate. Be careful what you divulge to them about your personal life.

One commenter here once had his picture, name & address posted on various denier sites in an attempt to provoke some nutter to do something stupid.

PhilM says: “Their first course of action is to look for ways of smearing you, so they trawl the net for whatever dirt they can get to shut you down. ” and then makes this unsubstantiated and QUITEUNTRUE claim: “This guy anonymous2 & his mate attempted to impersonate me several times & posted anti semitic smear to try & shut me down.”

Really?!? Ask the moderators/blog managers before making unsubstantiated claims. Its a lot less embarrassing when you are found to be wrong.

What makes you think there were only three? Jumping to conclusions with no actual evidence is a trait that appears quite common with AGW believers. There’s a whole lot more information available with comments/commenters. You should try running a blog to get some facts. Lotta work, but running down comment infractions is just part of it.

“There’s a whole lot more information available with comments/commenters. You should try running a blog to get some facts. Lotta work, but running down comment infractions is just part of it.”

I have & from what I remember there is no ip trace tool that tracks down to the mac address & hostname of your pc. It tracks the wan ip the isp hands you. This can be changed through a proxy & numerous emails can be set up using different providers.

Then perhaps slightly unfortunately I must announce a recess of four weeks, during which I will holiday in Norway. And do some fieldwork photographing glaciers and areas that were tundra when I was there around 1990 but should be below the treeline now. I wonder how fast forest can take over tundra, more generally how quickly landscape changes during fast climate change.

Basically a simple model using GHG’s and the increase of CO2 plus some volcanoe considerations do and have done an admirable job in predicting AGW.
But well, increasing greenhouse gas thus increasing average world temperature ain’t hard to calculate after all, see?

Always read backwards and get truth. So, yes anonymous2, causation causes correlation. In the case of AGW, by the way, causation has been known for slightly over 150 years and guess what: CO2-levels have gone so high that correlation is so obvious as to have become quite trivial.

Tell me, do you believe CO2 is no greenhouse gas? Would you actually like to deny the existence of CO2 altogether, maybe?

cRRk, tries hard to argue with himself, a common ploy when you have few actual facts. “Tell me, do you believe CO2 is no greenhouse gas? Would you actually like to deny the existence of CO2 altogether, maybe?” How did he get here?

CO2 is a GHG, as are many others, but why ignore H20, more prevalent and a wider IR absorption range than all the others. But, then if you actually know what the AGW theory climate theory is, then you realize is is based upon H20. Right?

But, how do we get to the Catastrophic predictions? How do we get to tipping points, when there is ample evidence it has never happened on this planet, even with much, much higher levels of CO2?

Good, anonymous2.
“but why ignore H20” - why do you ignore H2O I ask you? Climatologists don’t, they know the H2O in the atmosphere makes for most of the total greenhouse effect. Scientists even identified the water vapour feedback for increasing [CO2], remember?

“Right?” Read like AiW we get ‘Wrong!’ in direct translation here.

“But, how do we get to the Catastrophic predictions?” - Arctic sea ice, for example, is already past the tipping point. It cannot exist at present global temperature. Proof: http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.png?%3C?php%20echo%20time%28%29%20? and for past three weeks just continu: downward…

‘The most obvious example is Hansen’s 1988 testimony to Congress. The time since is now long enough to compare the model predictions/projections/claims against an ever improving empirical data sets, and that climate super star’s 1988 predictions/projections/claims are proving to be diverging significantly.’

I was hinting at your source for this bit of malarkey being Crichton by way of Pat Michaels, or Pat Michaels by way of Crichton - whatever.

So let us note how this has played out since.

Now Hansen’s original 1988 paper ‘Global Climate Changes as Forecast by Goddard Institute for Space Studies Three-Dimensional Model’ can be found here:

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/1988/Hansen_etal.html

with the PDF link at base of that abstract taking you here:

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf

Now those of us who have been involved in this business for more than a dog watch know that much nonsense was pushed about by messers (deliberate misspell) Crichton and Michaels where Michaels produced a version dropping scenarios B and C (Hansen had claimed scenario B was most likely and indeed this is how things have played out) so as to make the claim, based on scenario A, that Hansen had overstated his case.

LionelA, as a matter of fact my source was referenced above as McIntyre and Lucia. I never mentioned Crichton nor Michaels. But, when forced to divert attention we change the players or rephrase the comment.

BTW, McIntyre takes a whack at Michaels for dropping two of the Hansen scenarios.

‘LionelA, as a matter of fact my source was referenced above as McIntyre and Lucia. I never mentioned Crichton nor Michaels. But, when forced to divert attention we change the players or rephrase the comment.’

Ah, Yes. When at last you deigned to be more specific. But did you not notice the proximity of timing between my post referring to Crichton and Michaels and your response. At the time I wrote I had not seen that reply of yours for it had not appeared.

Besides, you failed to pick up the clues from my original post in this sub-thread which if you knew much about the history of the Hansen bashing you would have done.

‘BTW, McIntyre takes a whack at Michaels for dropping two of the Hansen scenarios.’

Wonderful! Only when he had no frigging choice!

I have demonstrated McIntyre’s deviousness, he found one tiny error in one minor part of a temperature reconstruction which failed to change the overall trend of that reconstruction and had no effect whatsoever on the many other temperature reconstructions which demonstrated a similar trend.

McIntyre has behave in a tiresome and unscientific manner throughout, as has been demonstrated, and time and time again. Get used to it!

Funny how the climate hysteria cult doesn’t seem to mind Reverend Al Gore’s propaganda movie being shown to indoctrinate children in elementary school – and yet doesn’t trust university students to think for themselves.

i was going to write the same thing but as in the past when questioned, these crazy people come out and ask what was wrong with algore’s movie . i tire of enlightening them and it becomes obvious that the two sides shall never meet. did he say in the movie that katrina was caused by agw and sea levels could/would rise by 7 million feet?

Really? Let´s have a look at that story: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/10/an_error_is_not_the_same_thing.php .

Here is the essence (I left out the peculiar misunderstanding):
“… the judge said many of the claims made by the film were fully backed up by the weight of
science. He identified “four main scientific hypotheses, each of which
is very well supported by research published in respected,
peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of theIPCC”.

In particular, he agreed with the main thrust of Mr Gore’s arguments:
“That climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of
carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide (‘greenhouse gases’).”
The other three main points accepted by the judge were that global
temperatures are rising and are likely to continue to rise, that
climate change will cause serious damage if left unchecked, and that
it is entirely possible for governments and individuals to reduce its
impacts.””
(from http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article2633838.ece ; refer to Deltoid to file the majority of this article where it belongs, say the round archive).

“It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film – although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion – but that it is a political film.” ruled Judge Burton.

But who said it wasn´t?? The message, so well versed as it is, is the point!

Gore is a divinity school drop out and scam oportunist.AIT was a silly Sci Fi fantasy flic and only got any attention because it help support the political and economic agenda of a large group of left wing liars.

So follow Big Oil. Apparently you find liars making money of lying the holiest of holymen, e.g.: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/28/climate-change-sceptic-willie-soon (who singlehandedly earned more than the US contributed to the IPCC cumulatively). Of course you gleefully pay for that every time you fill your tank or switch on the airco.

"Fossil-fuel companies have spent millions funding anti-global-warming think tanks, purposely creating a climate of doubt around the science. DeSmogBlog is the antidote to that obfuscation." ~ BRYAN WALSH, TIME MAGAZINE